Quantum-error-correcting codes using qudit graph states

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 78, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Looi, Shiang Yong ^a   Yu, Li ^a   Gheorghiu, Vlad ^a   Griffiths, Robert B ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; GRAPH THEORY; GRAPHIC METHODS; INFORMATION THEORY;

ARBITRARY DIMENSIONS; COMPUTER SEARCHES; CORRECTING CODES; DUAL REPRESENTATIONS; GRAPH CODES; GRAPH STATES; GRAPHICAL METHODS; LARGE N; SIMPLE GRAPHS; SINGLETON BOUNDS;

CODES (SYMBOLS);

EID: 54049133727     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.042303     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.R2493 52, R2493 (1995).
2. E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.55.900 55, 900 (1997).
3. A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77. 793 77, 793 (1996).
4. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 5th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
5. E. M. Rains, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IETTAW 0018-9448 10.1109/18.782103 45, 1827 (1999).
6. A. Ashikhmin and E. Knill, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IETTAW 0018-9448 10.1109/18.959288 47, 3065 (2001).
7. D. Schlingemann and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.012308 65, 012308 (2001).
8. D. Schlingemann, Quantum Inf. Comput. QICUAW 1533-7146 2, 307 (2002).
9. D. Schlingemann, Quantum Inf. Comput. QICUAW 1533-7146 3, 431 (2003).
10. M. Grassl, T. Beth, and M. Roetteler, Int. J. Quantum Inf. ZZZZZZ 0219-7499 2, 55 (2004).
11. V. Arvind, P. P. Kurur, and K. R. Parthasarathy, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0210097.
12. R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5188 86, 5188 (2001).
13. A. Cross, G. Smith, J. A. Smolin, and B. Zeng, e-print arXiv:0708.1021.
14. S. Yu, Q. Chen, and C. H. Oh, e-print arXiv:0709.1780.
15. D. Hu, W. Tang, M. Zhao, Q. Chen, S. Yu, and C. Oh, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.012306 78, 012306 (2008).
16. J. A. Smolin, G. Smith, and S. Wehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.130505 99, 130505 (2007).
17. See Ref. for a list of references to work that employs operators of this type.
18. While there seems to be no proof that the ((6,2,3)) 2 degenerate code has a larger K than any nondegenerate code with n=6 and δ=3, some support comes from the fact that we performed an exhaustive search of all graphs with 6 vertices and did not find a nondegenerate graph code with δ=3 and K>1. But the notion that this degenerate code is superior to nondegenerate codes is undercut by the observation that the well known nondegenerate ((5,2,3)) 2 code uses only five instead of six qubits to achieve equal values of K and δ.
19. A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. M. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IETTAW 0018-9448 10.1109/18.681315 44, 1369 (1998).
20. F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane, The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977).
21. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness (Freeman, New York, 1979).
22. R. Carraghan and P. M. Pardalos, Oper. Res. Lett. ORLED5 0167-6377 10.1016/0167-6377(90)90057-C 9, 375 (1990).
23. M. Grassl, Bounds on the Minimum Distance of Linear codes, available online at http://www.codetables.de, 2007.
24. A. Ketkar, A. Klappenecker, S. Kumar, and P. K. Sarvepalli, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory IETTAW 0018-9448 51, 4892 (2006).
25. We omit the details. In some but not all cases one can use the partition theorem with V1 and V2 the center and the peripheral vertices. Allowing some double edges when D>2 extends the range of n values where the partition theorem can be employed.
26. E. M. Rains, R. H. Hardin, P. W. Shor, and N. J. A. Sloane, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.953 79, 953 (1997).
27. S. Yu, Q. Chen, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, e-print arXiv:0704.2122.
28. Since the distance δ=3 does not exceed the diagonal distance Δ′ =3 for this graph, a graph code is necessarily nondegenerate, see Sec. 3, and hence the quantum Hamming bound-see p. 444 of Ref. -extended to D=3 applies, and this yields an upper bound of K≤1990.
29. D. Gottesman, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/9705052.
30. M. Bahramgiri and S. Beigi, e-print arXiv:quant-ph/0610267.
31. E. Hostens, J. Dehaene, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.042315 71, 042315 (2005).